• Russian Aircraft Litigation. Michal is instructed in over 90 claims together worth in excess of $12bn, with David Bailey KC, Charles Kimmins KC, Susannah Jones, Edward Gilmore and Alex Demetriades. They are acting for defendant all and war risks  reinsurers against whom the claimant lessors make claims under reinsurance contracts that they say give them direct causes of action on the basis that the Russian airlines did not return hundreds of aircraft, in respect of which the lessors say they validly terminated the leasing. A 10-week trial is listed for Michaelmas Term 2026. On behalf of their clients, the team also successfully applied for joinder in parallel proceedings brought by some of the same claimants under different insurance policies and a three-month trial between October 2024 and January 2025.
• King Crude Carriers v Ridgebury November [2025] UKSC 39, [2025] 3 WLR 707. Michal has been instructed in four arbitral references relating to sales of oil tankers. Led by Julian Kenny KC, Michal appeared in the hearing of preliminary issues before the tribunal, the section 68 challenge as well as the section 69 appeal in the High Court, the subsequent appeals to the Court of Appeal ([2025] KB 311) and Supreme Court (where he addressed the Court on his feet on some of the issue). The critical issue was whether Lord Watson, in Mackay v Dick (1881) 6 App Cas 251, had been right to say that where a party wrongfully prevented the fulfilment of a condition precedent to a debt, the condition would be deemed fulfilled.
• ENRC v Dechert, Gerrard and the SFO [2023] EWHC 3280 (Comm). Following the ‘phase 1’ trial on liability, which had been one of The Lawyer’s Top 20 Cases of 2021, Michal was instructed on behalf of Mr Gerrard, a former partner at Dechert. Michal subsequently appeared as sole counsel in a two-week ‘phase 1A’ trial that addressed issues of causation, loss and contribution. The litigation also involved the first reported instance ([2023] 2 WLUK 442) of a trial judge recusing himself from an application for contempt following a successful application by Michal (led, for that hearing, by Sasha Wass KC).
• Sian v Halimeda [2024] 3 WLR 937. Having written a chapter on Commencing Insolvency Proceedings on the Basis of an Arbitrable Debt in Bamforth and Gandhi (eds) Arbitration and Insolvency, Michal was instructed to appear in the Privy Council led by Paul Lowenstein KC and Rupert Hamilton on the question of whether the test for winding up should depend on whether the underlying debt is subject to an agreement to arbitrate.
• The CMA CGM Libra [2021] UKSC 51, [2022] 2 All ER 479.  Together with Timothy Hill KC and Alex Carless, Michal was instructed in the Supreme Court appeal about the meaning of seaworthiness and the obligation to exercise due diligence, which are two foundational concepts in virtually all contracts for the carriage of goods by sea.
• Ukraine and the Netherlands v Russian Federation  (applications 8019/16, 43800/14, 28525/20 and 11055/22). Michal acted with Lord Verdirame KC, Belinda McRae, Philippa Webb, Courtney Grafton and Brendan Plant for the Government of Ukraine in two inter-state cases at the European Court of Human Rights. Ukraine’s applications raised questions of whether Russia could be held responsible for the systematic violation of human rights in occupied areas of eastern Ukraine between its annexation of Crimea in 2014 and September 2022, when it ceased to be a party to the European Convention on Human Rights. The case also considered liability questions relating to Russia’s actions during the full-scale invasion of Ukraine beginning in February 2022.

Michal’s broad practice covers all aspects of Commercial Court work, including applications arising from arbitrations and obtaining relief in aid of enforcing arbitral awards or foreign judgments as well as other interim remedies. Increasingly, Michal is instructed to appear as sole counsel in these cases.

• SMT Global Logistics Limited v Georgian Airlines [2025] EWHC 739 (Comm), [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 528. Michal appeared as sole counsel in the Commercial Court to resist a jurisdiction challenge in a dispute relating to contracts of carriage by air. The case raised various conflicts of law issues, including principles of construction that apply to choice of forum clauses.
• Commercial Dispute arising from a Share Purchase Agreement. Leading Daniel Hodkingson, Michal is acting for a group of sellers in Commercial Court proceedings brought in respect of alleged breaches of warranty under an SPA. The claim also involves Part 20 claims as between the various warrantors, which turn on the meaning of a contribution agreement as well as the effect of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978.
• Albion v Heritage [2022] EWHC 162 (Comm). As sole counsel, Michal appeared in a week-long Commercial Court trial regarding a claim for more than $6 million, which turned on the proper construction of a loan agreement as varied by a subsequent share purchase agreement.
• Civiello v Brodahl [2024] EWHC 707 (Comm). Michal, as sole counsel, appeared in the Commercial Court relating to the scope of a freezing order and other relief against a judgment debtor who had not paid a foreign judgment debt. The litigation also involved issues of the scope of the court’s powers to grant a worldwide freezing order in aid of enforcing a foreign judgment. HHJ Pelling KC’s judgment on that point is unreported, but Falk LJ granted permission to appeal, and the appeal is pending.
• ENRC v Gerrard [2023] EWHC 3280 (Comm). Following the ‘phase 1’ trial on liability, which had been one of The Lawyer’s Top 20 Cases of 2021, Michal was instructed for Mr Gerrard, a former partner at Dechert. Michal subsequently appeared as sole counsel in a two-week ‘phase 1A’ trial that addressed issues of causation, loss and contribution. The litigation also involved the first reported instance ([2023] 2 WLUK 442) of a trial judge recusing himself from an application for contempt following a successful application by Michal (led, for that hearing, by Sasha Wass KC).
• Sian v Halimeda [2024] 3 WLR 937. Having written a chapter on Commencing Insolvency Proceedings on the Basis of an Arbitrable Debt in Bamforth and Gandhi (eds), Arbitration and Insolvency, Michal was instructed to appear in the Privy Council led by Paul Lowenstein KC and Rupert Hamilton on the question of whether the test for winding up should be different where the underlying debt is subject to an agreement to arbitrate.
• King Crude Carriers v Ridgebury November [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 115. These appeals raised the question of whether debtors could avoid their obligations to pay by wrongfully preventing the occurred of a condition, upon the occurrence of which the debt had become due. Michal was led by Julian Kenny KC. An appeal is due to be heard by the Supreme Court in July 2025.

Michal has extensive experience appearing before international tribunals, including in investor-state disputes. He has also served as a tribunal secretary to Sir Bernard Rix acting as sole arbitrator in an LCIA arbitration.

Much of Michal’s practice combines litigation and arbitration, including court proceedings brought to enforce or challenge arbitral awards.

• Sian v Halimeda [2024] 3 WLR 937. Having written a chapter on Commencing Insolvency Proceedings on the Basis of an Arbitrable Debt in Bamforth and Gandhi (eds), Arbitration and Insolvency, Michal was instructed to appear in the Privy Council led by Paul Lowenstein KC and Rupert Hamilton on the question of whether the test for winding up should depend on whether the underlying debt is subject to an agreement to arbitrate.
• Freezing Injunction to enforce LCIA award (2022). Michal was instructed as sole counsel to seek a worldwide freezing order to enforce an award for about US$15 million.
• King Crude Carriers v Ridgebury November [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 115. Michal has been instructed in four arbitral references relating to sales of oil tankers. Led by Julian Kenny KC, Michal appeared in the hearing of preliminary issues before the tribunal, the section 68 challenge as well as the section 69 appeal in the High Court, and the subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeal. The critical issue was whether Lord Watson, in Mackay v Dick (1881) 6 App Cas 251, had been right to say that where a party wrongfully prevented the fulfilment of a condition precedent to a debt, the condition would be deemed fulfilled. An appeal is pending before the Supreme Court.
• Albion Energy v EIGL [2020] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 501. Michal, led by Lord Grabiner QC and Julian Kenny QC, acted for the successful respondent to an application for a stay under the Arbitration Act 1996. The jurisdiction of the Court turned on the correct interpretation of a potentially overlapping exclusive jurisdiction clause and an arbitration clause across different contracts.
• ICC arbitration seated in Singapore (2023). Michal, with Timothy Hill KC, acted for the claimant in a $400m energy dispute arising out of the respondent’s cancellation of long-term commodity supply contracts in the context of the extreme price volatility in the markets.

• Russian Aircraft Litigation. Michal is instructed in over 90 claims together worth in excess of $12bn, with David Bailey KC, Charles Kimmins KC, Susannah Jones, Edward Gilmore and Alex Demetriades. They are acting for defendant all and war risks reinsurers against whom the claimant lessors make claims under reinsurance contracts that they say give them direct causes of action on the basis that the Russian airlines did not return hundreds of aircraft, in respect of which the lessors say they validly terminated the A 10-week trial is listed for Michaelmas Term 2026. On behalf of their clients, the team also successfully applied for joinder in parallel proceedings brought by some of the same claimants under different insurance policies and a three-month trial between October 2024 and January 2025.
• Marine Insurance Claims arising from Russian invasion of Ukraine. Michal, together with Timothy Hill KC, has been instructed by insurers in a series of marine insurance claims arising from the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
• Re-Insurance Arbitration (2020). Led by Philip Edey QC and Susannah Jones, Michal acted for the claimant reinsured in a high-value dispute that included allegations of ‘over-lining’, non-disclosure and misrepresentation under the previous law and the duty of fair representation under the current Insurance Act 2015.

The vast majority of Michal’s shipping and commodities practice takes place in confidential arbitrations. Nonetheless, he has appeared in a number of notable court cases.

• The CMA CGM Libra [2021] UKSC 51, [2022] 2 All ER 479. Together with Timothy Hill KC and Alex Carless, Michal was instructed in the Supreme Court appeal about the meaning of seaworthiness and the obligation to exercise due diligence, which are two foundational concepts in virtually all contracts for the carriage of goods by sea.
• The Flaminia [2023] Bus LR 686. Led by Julian Kenny KC, Michal acted in limitation proceedings arising from a catastrophic explosion. The proceedings involved an application for summary judgment on whether the charterer was prevented from limiting its liability because it had been reckless, an application for an anti-suit injunction and then a series of hearings (in the High Court, Court of Appeal, and upcoming in 2025, in the Supreme Court) on the proper construction of the Limitation Convention 1976.
• LMAA Arbitration (2025). Led by Julian Kenny KC, Michal acted for a vessel’s owners in a dispute arising out of a the vessel being trapped in a Ukrainian port following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The case turned on whether the charter had been frustrated, the scope of an implied indemnity under a time charter and an owner’s entitlement to a quantum meruit if the service was provided despite the charter having been frustrated.
• Berge Bulk v Taumata [2025] EWCA Civ 876. This was a jurisdiction challenge that raised the issue of whether exporters of certain cargoes had been the undisclosed principal of the party who had issued letters of indemnity enabling the discharge of cargoes. Michal was led by Timothy Young KC in the High Court and by Steven Berry KC in the Court of Appeal (where Michal also addressed the Court on his feet on some of the issues).
• The Aquafreedom [2024] EWHC 255 (Comm). Michal, together with Timothy Hill KC, appeared for the charterer in a hearing that turned on the proper construction and effect of certain ‘subjects’.
• Yangtze Naviation and another v TPT Shipping and others [2024] EWHC 2371 (Comm). Although this was a jurisdiction challenge, it raised the issue of whether exporters of certain cargoes had been the undisclosed principal of the party who had issued letters of indemnity enabling the discharge of cargoes. Michal was led by Timothy Young KC. The Court of Appeal is due to hear the appeal in May 2025.
• Falcon Trident Shipping v Levant Shipping [2021] EWHC 2204 (Comm), [2021] Costs LR 803. Michal acted as sole counsel in the London Circuit Commercial Court in a case the proper construction of a settlement agreement that, in the judge’s words, “questions of general interest as to the effect of a pre-action Part 36 offer, and as to the proper categorisation and recovery of fees that are incurred in investigating and securing a claim in another jurisdiction” (at [3]).